The Great Divide: Neither Fairness Nor Kindness Eliminates Moral Derogation of People With Opposing Political Beliefs

IF 4.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Social Psychological and Personality Science Pub Date : 2023-09-08 DOI:10.1177/19485506231194279
Phillip P. McGarry, Garriy Shteynberg, Timothy L. Hulsey, Andrew S. Heim
{"title":"The Great Divide: Neither Fairness Nor Kindness Eliminates Moral Derogation of People With Opposing Political Beliefs","authors":"Phillip P. McGarry, Garriy Shteynberg, Timothy L. Hulsey, Andrew S. Heim","doi":"10.1177/19485506231194279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"People increasingly view those with opposing political beliefs as less moral than those with shared political beliefs. Across two experiments, using a U.S. undergraduate sample ( n = 1,070) and a U.S. resident online sample through Prolific ( n = 402), we employed the Ultimatum Game (UG) to investigate whether acts of fairness, or even kindness, by persons with out-party political beliefs would mitigate moral derogation toward them. In neither experiment, did fairness or kindness by persons with opposite political beliefs moderate moral derogation. More extreme partisans engaged in even greater moral derogation of out-party (versus in-party) individuals, regardless of their acts of fairness or kindness. However, even self-identified moderate partisans engage in out-party moral derogation. The implications of these findings for political discourse and resolution for political conflict are discussed.","PeriodicalId":21853,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychological and Personality Science","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Psychological and Personality Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231194279","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People increasingly view those with opposing political beliefs as less moral than those with shared political beliefs. Across two experiments, using a U.S. undergraduate sample ( n = 1,070) and a U.S. resident online sample through Prolific ( n = 402), we employed the Ultimatum Game (UG) to investigate whether acts of fairness, or even kindness, by persons with out-party political beliefs would mitigate moral derogation toward them. In neither experiment, did fairness or kindness by persons with opposite political beliefs moderate moral derogation. More extreme partisans engaged in even greater moral derogation of out-party (versus in-party) individuals, regardless of their acts of fairness or kindness. However, even self-identified moderate partisans engage in out-party moral derogation. The implications of these findings for political discourse and resolution for political conflict are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
巨大的鸿沟:既不公平也不仁慈消除了政治信仰不同的人的道德贬损
人们越来越认为,政治信仰不同的人不如政治信仰相同的人道德。在两个实验中,我们使用美国大学生样本(n = 1,070)和美国居民在线样本(n = 402),我们采用最后通牒游戏(UG)来调查具有党外政治信仰的人的公平行为,甚至善意行为是否会减轻对他们的道德贬低。在这两个实验中,政治信仰相反的人的公平或善良都没有缓和道德的贬损。更极端的党派人士对党外人士(相对于党内人士)进行了更大的道德贬低,不管他们的行为是公平的还是善意的。然而,即使是自认为温和的党派人士也会参与党外道德贬损。这些发现对政治话语和解决政治冲突的意义进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.50
自引率
1.80%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Social Psychological and Personality Science (SPPS) is a distinctive journal in the fields of social and personality psychology that focuses on publishing brief empirical study reports, typically limited to 5000 words. The journal's mission is to disseminate research that significantly contributes to the advancement of social psychological and personality science. It welcomes submissions that introduce new theories, present empirical data, propose innovative methods, or offer a combination of these elements. SPPS also places a high value on replication studies, giving them serious consideration regardless of whether they confirm or challenge the original findings, with a particular emphasis on replications of studies initially published in SPPS. The journal is committed to a rapid review and publication process, ensuring that research can swiftly enter the scientific discourse and become an integral part of ongoing academic conversations.
期刊最新文献
The Strengths of People in Low-SES Positions: An Identity-Reframing Intervention Improves Low-SES Students' Achievement Over One Semester. Perceived Naturalness Biases Objective Behavior in Both Trivial and Meaningful Contexts Corrigendum to a Potential Pitfall of Passion: Passion is Associated with Performance Overconfidence The Game Within the Game: The Potential Influence of Demand Characteristics and Participant Beliefs in Violent Video Game Studies An Improved Scoring Algorithm for Indirect Evaluation Measurement With the Evaluative Priming Task
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1